Exactly how i would have imagined their conversation would be😂

Why would it explode and from what pressure?

Remember in the short (at the end) where the narrator said the turn is well beyound the aerodynamic limits of conventional aircraft at the time?​@@Arnechk

​@@Arnechk I think this comment is referring more to "force" than "pressure". An airplane pulling 12+ G even for a second, could be at risk of the wings falling off. Why? Modern combat-ready manned fighter jets have pre programmed G force limits. No matter the training the pilot has, forces over 9G tend to cause the pilot to lose consciousness after a few seconds; this means building the wings to withstand higher G forces would be a waste (adding strength adds weight, and adding weight reduces range, turn performance, climb performance, & acceleration), but there's probably some margin of safety.

@@Arnechk aerodynamic pressure, not the literal explotion from flammables and explosive materials, it was used as somekind of a metaphorical phrase. Its literal meaning is for the aircraft to be crushed by the overwhelming pressure of the air during its maneuver, in which the aircraft velocity and g force plays a big part as well.

Do you know what sort of aircraft this is?

@@My_Name_Is_Mud. Yes ? It's the The Rockwell-Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm X-31 is an experimental jet aircraft designed to test fighter thrust vectoring technology. I got the information above from Wikipedia but I remember it well when it displayed at Paris. More commonly known as the X-31

I would have LOVED to see that in person, however, I'm lucky enough to at least seen videos before. Unbelievably impressive and precise technology.

U should check su27 , with fuel and missiles

@@Novelpwnz I know the SU-27 as it displayed at Paris as well with a very well known display pilot from Russia. What I do know is it was in static display until the crew went round it with a spanner to check it was all tight, then pulled it out of the static to a taxiway and did a full display, Very impressive. I have also seen three SU-27 types displaying (flying) doing tailslides and cobras all at the same time at Farnborough in the UK, I have also seen them at Fairford at "R.I.A.T" like I said very impressive but in no way as agile and maneuverable as the X-31 but one is a test aircraft and the other is built for war so completely different but both are impressive in manoeuvrability.

To give you an idea I watched this aircraft at the Paris airshow and it balanced on its tail while moving sideways (like a crab) and then did a slight tilt and with full power pulling away from the ground in a vertical motion, all from its balancing on its tail at around 150ft. It was massively impressive and I will never forget it.

Loved those shows ❤

Slap some *300k glitter paint on it*

I believe the Russian military is better known for slapping paint on equipment and calling it a next generation. We actually design and build modern systems here in the US.

Ah yes that modern F35 that struggles to handle rain. Just a bit over a trillion dollars now, right? Definitely reminds me of the Russians, the USSR era Russians wrecking their economy over military spending and having bases across the world. ​@@TrySomeFentanyl

acecombatmaxxing tho

Ew

Correct

It sounds a lot like this is the same as an Immelman, with the differences being that the rollout happens in the middle of the maneuver rather than at the end, and the top of the arc is conducted post-stall... But at the top of an Immelman an aircraft is already unloaded... Whats the benefit of post stall maneuverability if it's just being used in a situation where the aircraft is unloaded anyway? Thrust vectoring is inherently cool, but I feel like there's something missing in the explanation here.

@@apieceofstring for this to be viable it would have to be executed at a very close distance and no missiles. Even if the adversary has no vectoring gimmicks they can do an immelman and be on the tail again. But it looks cool and thats what counts!

​@@apieceofstringI think PSM tech makes the turn tighter.

@@apieceofstring The difference is this is done by committing to a climb that you know will stall you out and knowing your thrust vectoring will allow you to still maneuver at the top. If you know the guy chasing you doesnt have the energy to follow you and he doesnt have thrust vectoring like you then you know youre safe to commit to stalling yourself and thus if the enemy commits too, you stall him as well and can take him out. And if the enemy doesnt follow you into the climb you will still have a positional advantage over him when you turn around because he didnt climb as high as you.

You a pilot for RyanAir?

No.

🤣🤣🫡

😂

I can see it 😂

I can see it 😂

No, an Immelmann is just an over the top u-turn. This maneuver is a stall where the pilot can pick any direction he wants to exit toward.

@@duncanmcgee13 It's a u-turn, it's also post-stall. They are totally different.

Thanks mate, I was wondering what model it was. It's beautiful!

Herbst in german means "fall" as in fall season before winter. Unless if the inventor of this manuever is named Herbst.

​@@TheGamingMotionTGMit is, as the short tells you. Wolfgang Herbst was among the pioneers of Post-stall technology and initiator of the precursor of the X-31 already, the Rockwell SNAKE. He died two years before the X-31 executed one of his maneuvers in real life.

It's easier in realistic, since in arcade you basically don't stall. Ironic, right?

@@dutchdragon2472 even easier in sim where the enemy cannot just point and click at you.

@@Arnechk Yeah, snapping to targets is infinitely easier with mouse control. Though you won't lose anything yourself since you basically need full real for the maneuver anyway.

I don’t think the pilot would be subjected to much negative g’s at that point as the plane looks very slow, it is more of a problem in the first part but with positive g’s. I’m not an expert though

ngl I thought it's J-10A

@@irfanhafizhbuntoro3772 it was a joint cooperation between America and Germany in building this jet you can tell because it looks foreign

For the Herbst Maneuver you need a TWR of >1, which I doubt any WW2 plane would have had

I had assumed they meant modern BVR type engagements they would have aircraft releasing their missiles and then going elsewhere.

I watched this aircraft fly at the Paris airshow in 1995 and trust me it can do a heck of a lot more weird and amazing twists and turns than just this video. I watched it balance on its tail while moving sideways then pulling away virtually it was unbelievable all at around 150-200 ft it just blew my mind as a kid.

Belkan.

The cobra isn’t Russian.

цирковой номер для 1993 года за счёт тяги двигателя и угла атаки с переворотом благодаря носовым закрылкам

In the modern sense then no, but it was thrust vectoring as the "doors" at the back deflected the thrust so the aircraft could perform outlandishly crazy turns that Many others could not at the time. Remember it was a test and demonstration aircraft so was developed to different standards as other aircraft but in the general sense it did have "thrust vectoring" as it was built for testing just that.